Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Pacers Digest mock draft 2013 FINAL, POST 1 UPDATED

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

    Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
    As the Kings FO we feel we are certainly not lacking in talent with DeMarcus Cousins and (a re-signed) Tyreke Evans. We feel that as Cousins and Evans mature we can develop into a very good team as long as we surround them with a good supporting cast.

    One member of that supporting cast that we feel confident in is Isaiah Thomas. though he may be small, we are very pleased with his production and feel he can improve even more because he is only 24. We feel confident with our PG, SG, and C positions moving forward. we also feel there is a very talented player that can solidify our PF position for many years to come

    With the 7th pick in the 2013 NBA draft the Sacremento Kings select, Anthony Bennett, PF UNLV

    We feel like Bennett is a very talented player and has the potential to become a star player in this league. if everyone develops right, we think we can have a big 3 if our own in DeMarcus Cousins, Tyreke Evans, And Anthony Bennett. We love the potential of an Isaiah Thomas and Anthony Bennett pick and roll and feel he can terrorize opposing defenses with his jump shot and his face up game. Though he may be a bit undersized we feel the NBA is moving away from the traditional big line-ups and teams are now going small and athletic. We truly feel we are acquiring a young, potential star in Bennett and we feel we have the potential to have on of the best PF-C combos in the NBA in Cousins and Bennett.
    He was already selected.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

      Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
      He was already selected.
      That'd be so awesome if it happened in the real NBA draft.

      It's happened in about every fantasy football draft I've been a part of.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

        Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
        He was already selected.
        Ahhhhhj that's a letdown , let me retype my whole draft thing

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

          With the 7th pick in the 2013 NBA draft, the Sacramento Kings select Cody Zeller, PF/C, Indiana

          Some people might view this as a reach, but I don't think this is a reach at all, Sacramento has a chance to solidify it's front court for years to come, Zeller has an excellent t mid-range game, and he is athletic enough to run a face up game and drive to the rim.

          Zeller may not be NBA ready, he may need a couple of years to acclimate to the physical style of the NBA, but we are willing to let him develop into his full potential even if it takes him a year or two. We are not in win now mode, but we do hope to be there in the near future. We feel with this pick, if Zeller reaches his full potential he can develop into a Pau Gasoline esque player.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

            Btowncolt sent me his pick.

            With the #8 pick in the draft, the Pistons select:



            Michael Carter-Williams, the 6'6 point guard from Syracuse.

            Btowncolt: "I like the Pistons backcourt talent with an actual playmaker."




            ------

            I'll make my pick in a few hours. i stayed up to watch the game but i'm too tired for anything else right now
            Last edited by hackashaq; 06-13-2013, 10:47 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

              MCW makes a ton of sense for Detroit, I've been saying it for a while.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                I'm convinced Btown hates me.

                ...so we need starters at the 2 and the 3, and we burn a top 10 pick on a point guard that can't shoot, turns the ball over like a drunken sailor in halfcourt sets, and hasn't played man to man defense in 3 years.

                ...but it is true that he's dynamite in transition, which should fit great alongside our lineup of Monroe, Drummond, and....and.... well, we still need two starters at both wing positions.
                Last edited by Kstat; 06-13-2013, 10:52 PM.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  I'm convinced Btown hates me.

                  ...so we need starters at the 2 and the 3, and we burn a top 10 pick on a point guard that can't shoot, turns the ball over like a drunken sailor in halfcourt sets, and hasn't played man to man defense in 3 years.

                  ...but it is true that he's dynamite in transition, which should fit great alongside our lineup of Monroe, Drummond, and....and.... well, we still need two starters at both wing positions.
                  Just curious, who would you have wanted at that spot that was available?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                    Please fall to #16

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                      Just curious, who would you have wanted at that spot that was available?
                      Muhammed and Caldwell pope were available.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                        BlueCollarColts picked two Hoosiers with his two picks...and I didn't bat an eyelash.

                        Honestly, I think they were both really good picks. Oladipo was a slam dunk for Phoenix at 5, and the Queens really need to get some character guys who don't need to volume shoot to impact the game. Zeller is a team player. It would be a good start for the Kings to get some unselfish guys who just want to win.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013

                          The Wolves don't really need more youth, and I'd consider trading this pick or rookie.

                          The Wolves' main need is shooting. Rubio-Kirilenko combo is brilliant for Rick Adelman's system because of their unselfishness and passing ability but it's very hard to work around in terms of spacing. They need to compensate at 2 and 4. Love should return to form once healthy, so that part is ok, but they still need a SG who's reliable from the 3pt line. Preferably someone who is unselfish and can pass a little because selfish players end up on Adelman's bench sooner or later. There are quite a few options in this draft both at #9 and #26.

                          The next big need would be shot blocking. I love Pekovic. He's a borderline All Star. He's a beast in the paint, a solid scorer and a very good offensive rebounder. He can also more than hold his own defensively vs. opposing low post centers. But he's not a shotblocker, and his PnR defense is shaky. You can live with those flaws considering how good he is in other areas. But it would be great to bring a 3rd big man. Someone who can help with rim protection and play minutes both with Love and Pekovic (a 4/5).

                          The third priority would be a long term replacement for Kirilenko. He's still very good. But he's not the most reliable guy as far as health and he's getting older. The Wolves have to start looking forward.

                          Overall, I think the Wolves are easily a playoff team if healthy. Consider this -- they started 16-14 essentially without Love and Rubio. Love played in a few of those games but he was just a shadow of himself and couldn't hit a shot. It just shows how good Pekovic and Kirilenko are. As well as Rick Adelman. When Pekovic and Kirilenko started missing some games (and a few role players went down as well), they couldn't keep up anymore.

                          I think they have to re-sign Pekovic this off-season. They have to keep the Love-Pekovic-Rubio core going forward. It's a young, very talented core. Pekovic has had some health issues lately but they don't seem to be concerning long term. If anything, they might bring his price down a little which would be a great thing. I could see the Wolves looking at some Pekovic sign and trades if they can get a rim protecting center but more likely than not this core is here to stay.

                          All they really need now are good role players around their main guys. At the start of the draft, I was thinking of drafting a shooting wing here. I'd look at McCollum and Pope above others. McCollum looks like the best option short term. Shooting, passing, high character. Rubio is pretty big so McCollum's lack of size would be manageable. I think Rick Adelman would love him. Pope has much more upside defensively but he's further away. And he's a bit on the selfish side. He's another legit choice here but I think he'd be limited to 10-15 minutes off the bench for the Wolves right now.

                          However, considering how the draft panned out so far, I have to go in a bit different direction here and draft:



                          Alex Len, C, Maryland

                          I think he's too much of an asset to pass at this spot. He could potentially be an insurance option in case of a Pekovic sign and trade. But more likely than not, he will be traded within the next month.

                          I think the Blazers, the Pelicans and the Magic would make sense as trade partners. The Blazers and the Pelicans are still looking for their long term center, and the Magic just need young pieces. I believe one of Eric Gordon, Wes Matthews or Afflalo (+probably something more) could be had here.

                          Another interesting trade partner would be the Suns. They are rebuilding, and Gortat could be that great 3rd big man for the Wolves with some shot blocking ability and ability to play both next to Love and some minutes next to Pekovic. They also have Dudley, who's also a great fit, and something like Gortat+Dudley for Len+Ridnour+other salary fillers would make sense for both teams.

                          IF Len were to stay a Wolf, I don't think he'd get major minutes right away. Probably 10-15 once he recovers from his foot injury. He's still a bit of a project, not unlike Hibbert once was. But he has great size, solid mobility and athleticism, and he should develop into a good two way center in a couple of years.


                          Yours,
                          David Ka Flip Saunders
                          Last edited by hackashaq; 06-14-2013, 09:08 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013 -- AVOIDINGTHECLOWNS otc

                            Welcome to Portland's 2013 first round selection, draftkateers. Let's get down to business and look at the roster to see where the holes might be.


                            C - Meyers Leonard / Joel Freeland
                            PF - LaMarcus Aldridge /
                            SF - Nicolas Batum / Victor Claver / Will Barton
                            SG - Wesley Matthews / Sasha Pavlovic
                            PG - Damian Lillard /


                            Holy shitsnacks.

                            I think at this point, in this draft, we need just about everything.

                            Somehow we have Meyers Leonard as a starting center and Joel Freeland as first big off the bench. That is what we in the basketball community call "awful". So our frontline is in bad shape, especially on the side of the ball where you're trying to prevent opposing players from scoring. A defensive-oriented big that could play with both LA and the remarkably challenged Leonard, would be interesting. Will Barton is interesting and by the end of last year he wasn't completely inept on offense, but other wise we're in need of help on the wings, too.

                            We also need another creator besides Lillard as having Batum in that role was a mixed bag (career high in both assist percentage and turnover percentage). Wes Matthews probably isn't going to be that guy as he's better as the dude the shot is created for.

                            PDX DRAFT BOARD

                            Alex Len and Lucas Nogueira were two names that kept being tossed about at Blazer HQ mostly because we have three picks in the 2nd round where the best and brightest seem to be perimeter players. And we have Len ranked slightly above Nogueira because we can't help but really like injured centers (and his slightly better on both sides of the floor, but mostly the injured thing).

                            In terms of other creators, obviously McCollum fits that if he happens to fall to #10. Jamal Franklin could be an option, if we trade down or use our three 2nds to trade up, a little uncomfortable taking him at #10 (Saric would be in the mix if he wasn't wanting to stay away from the States as we kinda need bench help yesterday).

                            Ultimately, I'm thinking the Blazers will not be making their own #10 pick when June 27 comes around. If someone like Utah (with their sights set on McCollum) or Atlanta (with their eyes set on someone they didn't tamper with) were motivated enough to trade up for #10 or if we can snag a starting quality center we'd be amenable to that (though free agency may be the best option at the moment with Splitter, Zaza and Dalembert on the market).

                            All that being said, with the 10th pick in the 2013 PD Mock Draft, the Portland Trail Blazers select:

                            KENTAVIOUS CALDWELL-POPE

                            As Tbird is always desperately searching for a mysterious player X, Portland and their fans are always hoping for ball-dominant SGs. With Clyde and BRoy, that's been a sweet spot of ours over the years. Does KCP fit the bill? Sure, if you disregard the fact that this dude kinda can't dribble. At all.

                            Ultimately, we need guys with immediately transferable skills and KCP has three: an improving 3pt shot, impressive defense and a crazy motor. And at #10 in this draft, this might be the best we can hope for.
                            This is the darkest timeline.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013 -- LONEGRANGER33 otc

                              I think some of the 2nd round picks are incorrect. You have the Hawks with the 47 and 48. I think it's 47 and 50.
                              First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers Digest mock draft 2013 -- AVOIDINGTHECLOWNS otc

                                Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                                Welcome to Portland's 2013 first round selection, draftkateers. Let's get down to business and look at the roster to see where the holes might be.


                                C - Meyers Leonard / Joel Freeland
                                PF - LaMarcus Aldridge /
                                SF - Nicolas Batum / Victor Claver / Will Barton
                                SG - Wesley Matthews / Sasha Pavlovic
                                PG - Damian Lillard /


                                Holy shitsnacks.

                                I think at this point, in this draft, we need just about everything.

                                Somehow we have Meyers Leonard as a starting center and Joel Freeland as first big off the bench. That is what we in the basketball community call "awful". So our frontline is in bad shape, especially on the side of the ball where you're trying to prevent opposing players from scoring. A defensive-oriented big that could play with both LA and the remarkably challenged Leonard, would be interesting. Will Barton is interesting and by the end of last year he wasn't completely inept on offense, but other wise we're in need of help on the wings, too.

                                We also need another creator besides Lillard as having Batum in that role was a mixed bag (career high in both assist percentage and turnover percentage). Wes Matthews probably isn't going to be that guy as he's better as the dude the shot is created for.

                                PDX DRAFT BOARD

                                Alex Len and Lucas Nogueira were two names that kept being tossed about at Blazer HQ mostly because we have three picks in the 2nd round where the best and brightest seem to be perimeter players. And we have Len ranked slightly above Nogueira because we can't help but really like injured centers (and his slightly better on both sides of the floor, but mostly the injured thing).

                                In terms of other creators, obviously McCollum fits that if he happens to fall to #10. Jamal Franklin could be an option, if we trade down or use our three 2nds to trade up, a little uncomfortable taking him at #10 (Saric would be in the mix if he wasn't wanting to stay away from the States as we kinda need bench help yesterday).

                                Ultimately, I'm thinking the Blazers will not be making their own #10 pick when June 27 comes around. If someone like Utah (with their sights set on McCollum) or Atlanta (with their eyes set on someone they didn't tamper with) were motivated enough to trade up for #10 or if we can snag a starting quality center we'd be amenable to that (though free agency may be the best option at the moment with Splitter, Zaza and Dalembert on the market).

                                All that being said, with the 10th pick in the 2013 PD Mock Draft, the Portland Trail Blazers select:

                                KENTAVIOUS CALDWELL-POPE

                                As Tbird is always desperately searching for a mysterious player X, Portland and their fans are always hoping for ball-dominant SGs. With Clyde and BRoy, that's been a sweet spot of ours over the years. Does KCP fit the bill? Sure, if you disregard the fact that this dude kinda can't dribble. At all.

                                Ultimately, we need guys with immediately transferable skills and KCP has three: an improving 3pt shot, impressive defense and a crazy motor. And at #10 in this draft, this might be the best we can hope for.
                                Can't you imagine CJ McCollum and Lillard together. Dayum. Lillard goes out and his doppelganger comes in.
                                First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X